Replies: 2 comments 6 replies
-
I have no definite plans to "kill" 1.2 branch. It will not get any new features but I will continue fixing critical bugs as long as the fix is reasonably portable from "master" (1.3). Said that, I would still recommend that someone fixes python bindings sooner than later. E.g. "I work for a ~100 engineers company..." comment (obligatory xkcd) :) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
4 replies
-
That repo is set up as an organization. So if somebody is able to reach the
owner they may be willing to turn it over to someone willing to support it.
The first step is obviously somebody willing to support it but the second
step might be trying to reach the person then volunteering.
…On Tue, Feb 20, 2024, 10:01 AM lsh123 ***@***.***> wrote:
There is always an option to clone the repo, right?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#762 (reply in thread)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAH3N6ZXZU5T7273CXP5D6TYUSUEDAVCNFSM6AAAAABDPDXVO6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43SRDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHM4DKMZQGQZTM>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
2 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
People at homebrew are asking, to know if it's worth to introduce a dedicated xmlsec 1.2 homebrew recipe. Python folks relies heavily on xmlsec 1.2 and are trying to push a dedicated recipe in homebrew, because the python-xmlsec binding is broken for 1.3 and it looks like it will remain that way for a long time, so a xmlsec 1.2 dedicated recipe in homebrew would be a big relief.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions